Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)

Citation
Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
Parent Document
Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
Jurisdiction
New York (state)
Effective Date
2003-02-25

Full Text

556 chars
*596Tenant’s second defense of failure to state a cause of action is dismissed because it is the rule in the Second Department that this defense cannot be interposed in the answer but must be raised by motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) (e.g. Staten Is.-Arlington v Wilpon, 251 AD2d 650 [1998]). Tenant’s third defense of improper verification is dismissed because this objection was not made with due diligence (CPLR 3022; Matter of Giambra v Commissioner of Motor Vehs. of State of N.Y., 46 NY2d 743, 745 [1978]; Ligotti v Wilson, 287 AD2d 550 [2001]).